The Dollarization Question Inside Stablecoins

What changed: stablecoin use has grown from a crypto-market settlement tool into a material cross-border channel in some countries. The IMF now treats foreign-currency stablecoins as part of the policy discussion around remittances, currency substitution, capital flows, and tokenized finance. At the same time, official analysis warns that headline transaction totals include bots and arbitrage. The useful measure is not raw onchain volume but completed household and business payments, including the fees and exchange rates at both ends.

Who bears risk: families and small firms may save on a transfer yet pay more at an illiquid on-ramp or cash-out desk. Local banks can lose deposits, governments can lose policy control, and users can become dependent on a foreign issuer's freeze and redemption rules. The effects differ sharply by inflation, capital controls, banking access, and local-currency alternatives. Coverage should resist one global verdict and instead compare the complete cost, speed, reliability, legal status, and recourse available in each corridor.

What remains open: policymakers have not settled how to balance access with reserve, capital-flow, tax, and consumer-protection goals. Local-currency stablecoins may reduce dollarization but need credible backing and demand. Better data is also essential because wallet transfers do not reveal purpose or final settlement. BLAKE should build corridor files that show issuer, chain, local exchanges, banking partners, fees, spreads, cash-out limits, and policy changes. That approach can test claims of financial inclusion without turning them into product recommendations.